Made my day to see one of our Snake Boxes in a lovely interview with Elizabeth Swartz of @bunnywilliams_interiordesign on @incollect ! Such a talented designer, with a great mentor, we are very excited to see her future projects! #greatclients #grateful #mademyday .
.
.
.
#interiordesign #bunnywilliams #talenteddesigner #newtalent #interiorinspo #classicdesign #luxuryinteriors #nofilter #incollect #victoriaandson

Very excited to have a #LouisXVI Heating stove in our antique collection once again! These beautiful pieces of sculpture were the answer to “pre-central air”18th Century Europe. Our family has been lucky enough to deal with a few of these after WWII up until 1990 or so. We haven’t had any since, until now. #antiques #curio #art #VictoriaandSon .
.
.
#oneofakind #curiousity #unique #uniquestyle #livingwithantiques #stylishlife #frenchantiques #cherub #putti #luxurydecor #sculpture

About two weeks ago, 1stDibs sent a letter to design trade users defending their removal of dealers names from listings and their moves to control the interaction between clients and dealers. 1stDibs also announced a "trusted partner" program in which trade users would get additional "editorial" coverage in their blog/social media and be able to see dealer names (in some cases) - the requirement to be a trusted partner would be doing a minimum of $50000 worth of business on the platform.

In defending their actions, 1stDibs claimed they had not "removed seller branding". This is simply delusional. If an image of an interior designer's work had the designer’s name removed, would the designer consider that a removal of his/her branding? Of course. Creators, makers and dealers are defined by their pieces the same way a designer is defined by his or her work. It is their brand.

1stDibs may be referring to the fact that dealer store-fronts are still on the site - that's great; except how do they expect users to get to a store front if pieces aren't attributed to dealers and there is no link? The only way for a client or user of the site to get to a dealer’s store-front is if they search specifically for that dealer on the site. I think it's safe to say the vast majority of the users on 1stDibs are looking for objects and pieces, not particular dealers.

In their letter, 1stDibs says these changes are part of their efforts to “facilitate the transition of the luxury design industry to a digitally driven world.” The implication is that the only way for this to happen is to keep dealer and client information from one another, and protect their commission in the process. Yet their mission, in their own words, is to connect “the most qualified buyers to the best design product in the world.” The design business isn't one you can pretend to promote by hiding one half of it from the other. More importantly, the idea that an online luxury design industry, and the idea that having pieces attributed to dealers, with unfettered communication with clients, are two mutually exclusive concepts is false. See Houzz, InCollect, Decaso, Dering Hall, Etsy and even Amazon - all of which attribute pieces to their dealers.

Then we come to the trusted partner program, which is basically a pay-to-play scheme. The more business designers give 1stDibs, the more perks they will offer. But why on earth should a designer, or anyone, have to pay $50000 to know who is on the other side of a trade? All it takes is some extra keystrokes, or using another site, and they would more than likely be able to find that information online anyway. And say a designer joins this program, what happens when they raise the bar to enter this program to $75000 or $100000? Is that the annual fee for having the basic information you are entitled to? Making trade users have to pay for basic information about the dealers they are buying from is the opposite of transparency, and one that made 1stDibs great in the first place - bringing dealers and clients together from all over the world.

So, what are we doing about it? Well, my father and I came to the decision that being on 1stDibs, under the current listing regime, is detrimental to our business and, in our opinions, to the industry. We have tried to end our membership but were told that their Terms & Conditions are essentially a contract and when we accepted those Terms (which we had to do in order to access our content on the site) we agreed to another year of membership. 1stDibs intends to keep us on the site until June when our “contract” is up - Apparently they want all possible dealers on the site, even those who don’t want to be there. So, while we wait for June to arrive, we are increasing our presence on InCollect and Dering Hall and possibly Decaso. We are also investing in our website; specifically in the ecommerce function and the ability for clients to get quotes through the site.

What can you do? If you are a dealer, find out when your “contract” with 1stDibs renews. If you are considering not renewing with the site, you will need to notify them in writing 30days prior to your renewal date. If you are a designer, let 1stDibs know how you feel about their new policy. I believe what 1stDibs is banking on is the idea that designers don't care anymore where a piece comes from. That as long as it arrives on-time, fits the project etc, they do not care who the dealer is. But, if you like supporting small businesses and craftspeople, and appreciate knowing who you are dealing with, please let 1stDibs know. If you haven’t already done so, check out some other sites like InCollect, Dering Hall and Decaso to see if they work for you. If they don’t, tell them how to improve their site. The same goes for your favorite dealers - if you find their websites unusable or in need of improvement, let them know. I know I would appreciate that sort of feedback!

When I first started working with my father in this business +10 years ago, he told me that the most important thing is your name. If a client could not trust an antique dealer, all the provenance and documentation of a piece is worthless. This may seem anachronistic, since instead of going into a shop, most sales are now done online but a dealer needs to stand behind their pieces regardless of how it is sold and regardless of whether their pieces are antiques, textiles or custom furniture. It is their “brand.”

But now, apparently 1stDibs, wants to take the dealer out of the equation - they have removed dealers names from the individual pages for all pieces as well as the general list-view pages. Have they assumed the responsibility to stand behind all the pieces on their website? No. Are they finding, buying and holding the inventory? No. Are they answering questions about the pieces? No. Are they designing new pieces and making them? No. Dealers are now referred to as “sellers” on their platform which may seem inconsequential, but I believe speaks volumes. 1stDibs seems to be more concerned with protecting their commissions rather than promoting a healthy design industry. To put it in perspective, you will now find it easier to know who you are buying from on Etsy than on 1stDibs.

A little background:

We have been dealers on 1stDibs since its early days in 2003. Coupled with the internet in general, it is impossible to overstate the impact it has had on the Antiques, Interior Design and Furniture trades. Whereas designers used to physically go to showrooms and galleries to “shop”, they now peruse 1stDibs, and then perhaps go to see something specific in person. It was a game changer for our industry and helped start and prolong many businesses.

The Good:

Creating an online collection of the world's best dealers was huge. Users could find high quality pieces on the site bringing together clients and dealers who had never worked together or even known of each other. The art and antique trade is highly fragmented, and dealers tend to be the opposite of early adopters of technology. So, websites were not so great in the early ‘00’s (or still…). 1stDibs changed that and made it possible for a collector in the UK to find something in Florida. Huge.

More recently they also introduced an ecommerce component which has, in my opinion, been a major positive for dealers, many of whom do not have ecommerce enabled websites. Most significantly, they have become a trusted intermediary of exchange - the buyer might not be very familiar with the dealer, but they knew 1stDibs and felt more comfortable purchasing through them. Given the fragmented world of dealers, dispersed geographically but accessible online, this was a major boon to the industry and worth every penny of the commission cost.

The Bad:

When the current owners bought 1stDibs, other aspects of the platform changed as well. Dealers (“sellers”) on the site increased significantly. They expanded to hosting “sellers” for currently produced items as well as art and fashion pieces. There was now a much larger selection, but of varying quality.

The downside of the ecommerce function was that it now placed 1stDibs’ interest at odds with both dealers and clients. 1stDibs’ commission revenue is now directly related to volume of transactions, very similar to how the auction houses’ pricing evolved in the early 1980s. The volume aspect works well with their expanded number of dealers. Perhaps as a reflection of this, they have created a “highly rated seller” distinction which you will find on some dealers items (but not the name of the dealer...). This has nothing to do with the quality of the dealer, their qualifications, or their position in their speciality - it only reflects the volume of sales they generate on 1stDibs.

1stDibs also now has to“protect its commission.” Presumably to this end, a few years ago, they started controlling how clients would contact dealers. Messages via 1stDibs were anonymized and monitored - if private emails were exchanged they blocked the message - and calls via pseudo-numbers are routed through its call center in a similar fashion. Dealers were very upset about this, rightly so. It impeded the flow of information (working against efforts of trying to increase knowledge and appreciation of a craft or art) and had a "big brother" feel of a third party trying to control something beyond their purview. The latest step, of removing the dealers names from all listings, is surely towards this end as well.

So what do we do now? Frankly, I wish we didn't have to do anything. I am more than willing to pay 1stDibs its commissions on sales. But commissions on top of a monthly fee for anonymous listings? I used to be able to justify this as a marketing expense but now is it just for the privileged of being on 1stDibs? That seems hard to justify. What's the point of holding a beautiful inventory or creating wonderful pieces if we are not identified? It erodes the role of a dealer and of my business. And as a creator, it gives me great concern about the ability of knock-offs of our pieces to go unchecked. 1stDibs now becomes just a means to move inventory anonymously. We plan to bolster the ecommerce function of our own website and expand our presence on other third party sites, specifically InCollect and Dering Hall, which both seem to be more interested in promoting the trade and all its participants. Will we continue to use 1stDibs? We’ll see. We will probably change what new pieces we put up there, if anything. Hopefully something changes but it doesn't feel like it's headed in the right direction.